* Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk) wrote in reply to my reply:> > This was something that was brought up in a discussion at the kernel> summit by (I think) Paul Mackerras. The question was how to make> sure we get all arch's in sync before doing a release.> It should be fairly straightforward thing to do for 2.6.x releases,> but during 2.5.x when stuff is changing so rapidly, it doesn't make> sense to hold up the majority of users just so the other archs can> play catch up.

True; thats why I only started submitting these now we are featurechilled. I reckoned it was important not to get into the misconceptionwe didn't have many bugs left because things were starting to chug alongnicely on x86.

> > Don't forget that ia64, x86-64 and s390 are all potentially growing> > users of Linux.> > ia64 and x86-64 maybe, but s390 is way out of the pricerange of most> Linux users. Those who can afford it will likely use distro kernels anyway> due to the added support they paid for.

True; but sometimes people have desires to run the same/similar kernelversions on all their systems and/or use some patches without having tohave versions for all systems.

> > Linux on ARM, MIPS and PPC also has a healthy band of> > productive (commercial and home) users.> > Russell has done a great job at keeping ARM up to date in 2.5,> as have the PPC folks. For the most part, the archs aren't that> out of sync. (Insert comedy remark here about m68k being more> up to date than alpha).

Indeed - (Alpha is actually one of the few non-x86 architecturesthat actually built fully for me in a recent 2.5.x - and made a passableattempt at booting)